On Wed, 30 Jan 2013, Andrea Splendiani wrote:
No Derivative Works — You may not alter, transform, or build upon this work.
Doesn't sound like building on the shoulders of giants, doesn't it?
no, and that's why we (at uniprot) want to change it. if you read the actual
legal text it sounds muc
No Derivative Works — You may not alter, transform, or build upon this work.
Doesn't sound like building on the shoulders of giants, doesn't it?
But the question is: does it refer to an information artifact (e.g. an image)
or its content?
Best,
Andrea
Apologies for typos, Sent from an iPhone
Hi All,
We (uniprot) are working on changing this to be more permissive. But
are waiting on the CC4 process.
If you want to know more please write to h...@uniprot.org as I do not
know specifics.
Regards,
Jerven
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 4:44 PM, Michel Dumontier
wrote:
>
> UniProt uses this rest
UniProt uses this restrictive non-open license
ftp://ftp.uniprot.org/pub/databases/uniprot/current_release/rdf/README
m.
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 5:52 AM, Susanna Sansone wrote:
> Hi all,
> calling on your expertise, please.
> I am looking for real experiences and examples showing if and how a
I would expect that Creative Commons would have a strong interest in
pursuing violations of any of their CC licenses, if only to establish their
legitimacy if that hasn't already happened. The Free Software Foundation
(FSF) has pursued violations of the GPL and LGPL on a number of occasions
on beha
Hi all,
calling on your expertise, please.
I am looking for real experiences and examples showing if and how a
CC-ND waver/license for data files and related experimental descriptors
_limits its reuse_ (as derivative works won't be allowed, e.g. data
mush-ups, linked data).
Beside the official
